Metternich: Strategist and Visionary

by Wolfram Siemann, Daniel Steuer (Translator)

“A superb biographical portrait and work of historical analysis…Let us hope that it will serve if not as a manual then at least as an inspiration―good statesmanship is needed more than ever.”
―Brendan Simms, Wall Street Journal

“Brilliantly refreshes our understanding of Metternich and his era…[He] was an intellectual in politics of a kind now rare.”
―Christopher Clark, London Review of Books

“Succeed[s] in forcing readers to wonder whether Metternich’s efforts to defend an essentially conservative order against populists and terrorists are so different from the struggles that liberal democracies face today.”
―Andrew Moravcsik, Foreign Affairs

Metternich is often portrayed as the epitome of reactionary conservatism, a ruthless aristocrat who used his power to stifle liberalism and oppose the dreams of social change that inspired the revolutionaries of 1848. But in this landmark biography, the first to make use of state and family papers, Wolfram Siemann paints a fundamentally new image of the man, revealing him to be more forward-looking and nimble than we have ever recognized.

Clemens von Metternich emerged from the horrors of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars committed above all to the preservation of peace. As the Austrian Empire’s foreign minister and chancellor he was, as Henry Kissinger has observed, the father of realpolitik . But short of compromising on his overarching goal, Metternich aimed to accommodate liberalism and nationalism. Siemann draws on previously unexamined archives to bring this dazzling man to life.

Hailed as a masterpiece of historical writing, Metternich is indispensable for understanding the forces of revolution, reaction, and moderation that shaped the modern world.

Genres: Biography, History, Nonfiction, Politics, European History, 19th Century, Biography Memoir

928 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2016

About the author

Wolfram Siemann, one of Germany’s leading historians of the nineteenth century, is Professor Emeritus for Modern and Contemporary History at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.

Reviews

[Anthony · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maintaining the Balance of Power

Metternich: Strategist and Visionary is a welcome revision on our presumptions of Prince Klemens von Metternich, the Austrian statesman who dominated European politics for much of the first half of the eighteenth century. He has always evokes strong reactions, mostly based on presumptions of his views and character. A man on one side following conservatism and stability, on the other a repressive reactionary. Known as the ‘Coachman of Europe’, Metternich is alleged to have set up a system which suppressed the liberal, national and socialist ideology within the Austrian Empire which would bring down the old order. What Wolfram Siemann shows is that is simply not true and that Metternich was deep, complex and extremely talented. He accepts that Metternich did try to predict radical outbursts across the continent, but also that he believed in a fair, federated or elected system, with an emperor at the top who could curtail any dictators. He also saw the despotic regimes across other countries especially that of Napoleonic France and also in Tsarist Russia which threatened peace and the balance of power Metternich so craved.

The book has been criticised for being a hagiography of Metternich or failing to defend him as an intolerant and brutal reactionary towards democratic or nationalist movements. I disagree. Granted the book is pro Metternich, but what it shows is his ultimate aim to find the middle ground and more importantly his pursuit in maintaining the balance of power. The eighteenth century idea that no one state in Europe should gain too much strength, as can be shown with Napoleonic France or Imperial Germany. This is for me, what Metternich was about. He feared radicals and revolutionaries as much of his contemporaries did too. They had just fought a twenty year war to free themselves from aggressive political forces which had turned the world upside down. Steering Austria and Europe through peace and security was a huge balancing act. In hindsight it can be argued that there could have been less censorship and more freedom of the press, however circumstances considered Metternich tried to do good.

Metternich’s life was long and rich. Born into Rhineland nobility, he had a start in life with his father, who he was close with being a diplomat the Austrian government. Metternich was lucky enough to study diplomacy at Strasbourg University before the French Revolution. Through his marriage to Eleonore von Kaunitz he was able to reach the top tier of Austrian politics, eventually becoming foreign minister. He was involved from there on in, high politics of Europe until he was disposed in the revolutions of 1848. An anglophobe, where he was twice exiled to the UK, he wanted to model the Austrian government on the British system. A constitutional democratic monarchical system.

Metternich: Strategist and Visionary is well written and very readable even as a translation. Siemann has used previously unused archival material from the family papers in Prague alongside other documents from Czechia and Vienna. This gives an intricate look at the man, never seen before. As I have said above this is very much needed. The book follows a general chronological pattern, with important chapters on women, war and economics. The true success of the book is analysis and Siemann is not across to put across his conclusions from the work. Yes you don’t have to agree with him, but it is impressive scholarly work. This is what I loved about it and I found Siemann extremely thorough and a very talented writer. For me Metternich: Strategist and Visionary is a great book on an extremely important man.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Metternich: Strategist and Visionary, by Wolfram Siemann is an interesting new account of Clemens von Metternich, the famous architect of the Congress of Vienna, and veteran statesman of the Austrian Empire. This book begins by looking at the historiographic tradition of Metternich in biography. Metternich has been vilified by scholars from the German Nationalist and Socialist schools of history, due to his promotion of Austrian Imperialism and his opposition to the French revolution, respectively. In modern times, Metternich has been given a more rosy view by American statesman Henry Kissinger, who derived policy positions and international political ideas from studying both Metternich and Castlereagh, in promoting US foreign policy and systems of power politics. Siemann seeks to revise the history of Metternich to create an account from the time and place that Metternich existed, without framing it in modernity or trying to capture Metternich in a particular historical school.

Metternich was an interesting character. Born to a family of German's in service to the Hapsburg Empire, his father was a political fixer for the Hapsburg dynasty in the Holy Roman Empire, he was groomed into a diplomatic position. He was educated in a modern, aristocratic school, whose teachers were sympathetic to the French revolution. However, Metternich developed a political ideology based on the German Holy Roman constitution, his families aristocratic ties to the Estates General, his time and respect for the English constitution, and Austrian Imperialism. His first jobs were in revolutionary Europe, working for his father as Belgium and the Netherlands fell, and the family lost their familial holdings in the Left Bank of the Rhine and in Bavaria. Metternich achieved higher power in 1809 during the fourth coalition war against Napoleon, with previous history as the Austrian Ambassador to Dresden, Berlin and Paris. Finally, he returned as Minister of Foreign Affairs, guiding Austria through the final years of the Napoleonic Wars. His deft handling of Austria's isolation gained him favour with Napoleon through a marriage alliance with Austria, and the repeated active neutrality with Russia and Prussia. His principle, the Kruener Strategy, allowed Austria to play the loyalty card with Napoleon. Napoleon then moved on to attack Russia. Metternich's strategy was a wait and see approach, monitoring the progress of the Russian War. When things began to turn for Napoleon, Metternich quickly began negotiations with England and Prussia to attack while Napoleon was weak. Through a protracted series of battles, Austria and her coalition partners finally managed to defeat Napoleon, returning lost territories to Prussia, Russia and Austria, and dismantling the system of vassals Napoleon had set up across Europe.

Metternich remained in power in Austria until 1848, guiding the country through a conservative/autocratic style. He remained close to the Emperors, but was able to sideline the old absolutist politicians in the Empire. He sought to cement Austrian power by reworking the internal systems in the Empire to ensure rights were respected for the Empires numerous nationalities. The press was curtailed as well. Metternich sought to industrialize Austria, supporting the construction of factories and manufacturies, engaging in global trade, and increasing the administrative efficiencies of the Austrian Empire. The echoes of the French revolution were, in Metternich's eyes, a grave threat, as was the growing nationalist tendencies in Eastern Europe. He sought to suppress these tendencies by combating the various nationalist movements, including that of German's, Croatians, Serbians and Hungarians, with varying degrees of success. Metternich has the strong aptitude to view events and perceive their possible outcomes. This gave him an uncanny ability to predict responses, think steps ahead, and effectively reign in opposition and threats. His policies gave a new lease on life to the Austrian Empire, which had been in deaths door at the beginning of the 19th century.

Metternich fell from grace after his failed attempt to suppress the revolts in Austria in 1848. These revolts were inspired by adherents of both greater political freedoms for peasants, and nationalists in Hungary, Poland, and Croatia, as well as German and Czech Nationalists. Metternich attempted first to appease, and then suppress these movements, but eventually his political manoeuvrings caught up with him, and he fell from grace. He was exiled from the capital, and his remaining time was spent in exile. This fall from grace lead to the slow federalization of Austria into its Austro-Hungarian entity, which sought to distance itself from German unification and promote the kingdoms of Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia. Metternich remained influential in politics through correspondence, but did not attempt to contribute further from the centres of power.

All in all, an interesting revisionist text looking at the various thoughts and strategies of Metternich. This book takes a political stance, and attempts to view how Metternich made decisions by analyzing his upbringing, education, and influence in events. A strong contender for an excellent biography, and one worth a read for fans of Metternich, and for this era of history.

[Bakunin · Rating 3 out of 5]

What happens to a country after it has undergone a revolution? And what happens if the revolution spreads to several neighboring countries? How is order and its institutions to be maintained? Seen from this perspective, the outcomes of the spread of such a revolution seem impossible to predict. Therein lies a great danger.

This was very much what was Prince Klemens von Metternich's (1773-1859) mind; an Austrian diplomat who helped defeat Napoleon and create the "Metternich system" to balance power in Europe, a man who has been viewed as an arch-conservative and therefore an enemy of change everywhere. I first came across his name when reading Kissingers "World order" and his political influence intrigued me. It was hard to find a biography of the man (seems to be largely forgotten except in academic circles) and this book provides a somewhat revisionist account of the life & times of the man. It was an interesting read but nevertheless (as all revisionist literature is) had a tendency to view its subject in too positive a light. Having no other literature to rely on, it was difficult for me to know the veracity of certain statements. Nevertheless it provided new light on a more forgotten chapter of history.

Klemens von Metternich was born into a diplomatic family whose children had served the Habsburg for at least a century. Klemens was allowed to travel with his father on diplomatic excursions to the low countries (which were then a part of the Habsburg empire) where he could see politics in action. The two defining events of his life were the French revolution and the military campaigns of Napoleon. It is clear that Metternich had a lot to lose from the revolution (indeed everything that the family had fought for) and therefore it is easy to understand why from a personal perspective he would be against such a revolution. But there is a much deeper concern here and that is one of stability.

Metternich spent his youth studying law and history. In doing so he became something of a social scientist. "A politician, [Metternichs teacher Koch said], must look at history scientifically, establish its systematic and regular features, and search for casual connections. If we consider his approach form today's perspective, but translate his concepts into modern methodology, then we get a politically minded social scientist, a Max Weber, who looks to history not for norms but for ideal types, in order to capture the complex empirical reality and "to organize it intellectually". (p. 59)

In order to preserve order one first has to understand it as well as understanding the political underpinnings of the vast historical change the world seemed to be undergoing. The French revolution was "not only a political revolution but in its essence a "social" revolution. It wanted to topple the social order and the old law of Europe" (p. 71) Another way to express it is to say that it marked the birth of ideology. Ideology, like religion, was destined to have a stronger appeal to people than that of traditional authority.

Metternichs view of the past was that societies evolved gradually and peacefully by making changes in the constitution. When asked which nationality he would preferred had he not been Austrian he responded English. His thinking was deeply affected by his travels to London where he got to meet Pitt and experience firsthand what it was English parliamentary system was like (he might even have met Burke). My interpretation of the Austrian diplomats views is that they came down to something closer to an idealism tamed by a certain pragmatism. Idealism is the sense that as the enlightenment had provided a framework for understanding society and its development but one needs to be careful when implementing change all too quickly as that may lead to anarchy (or tyranny like in France during the reign of terror). That is also the danger of ideology as it provides an ideal view of society but not necessarily a view of how such a society would work in practice.

Metternich described a teacher (Friedrich Simon) he once knew who had become convinced of the righteousness of the revolution: "In Metternich's eyes, Simon was the prototype of a seemingly soft, commited do-gooder and revolutionary "fundamentalist", in today's parlance, with a propensity to violence. [...] Friedrich Simon was one of those characters who is easily inspired and gets carried away, who ruthlessly sacrifices victims in the name of the high ideals of humankind because the end seems to justify the means" (p. 77) (Simons line of thought might be summarzied with "fiat iustitia pereat mundi", let justice be done, even if the world perishes).

One can't help but feel that Metternich had a sense of responsibility that stretched beyond the constraints of the contemporary world. To quote Yuval Levins book on the debate between Burke and Paine: "Burke sees society as a relationship not just between the living, but also between the living, the dead, and the people of the future. Society exists not to facilitate individual choice but to meet the needs of the people, and to do so, it must draw on the wisdom available to future generations as well, supplemented by lessons learned by the current generation along the way" The connection to history and tradition therefore served as a framework which defined the edges of what was morally permissible. Without that framework one risks the excesses of ideology.

The job of foreign politics can be summarized in this quote: "There are two ways of surveying an area: from a high mountain or from a point on the plane. On my journeys, I made it one of my rules to choose the highest tower in the middle of a city still unknown to me as the destination of my first excursion. Within a few minutes, I knew the city better than my fellow travelers who wanted to become familiar with is in a less arduous manner by walking through the streets. [...] Of this perspective I have never since lost sight" (p. 90)

Given this viewpoint, how should one handle Napoleon and his seemingly insatiable appetite for conquest? One of the key takeaways from this book is the insight that Napoleon essentially exported the revolution countries around the world and therefore made the French revolution a world-wide phenomenon. (One wonders what would've happened had foreign forces managed to invade France before the advent of Napoleon on the world stage). He did this by implementing constitutional changes to all the countries he vanquished as well as replacing the ruling elite with those friendly to France (and more importantly to Napoleon).

There is always a risk in reviewing history as one already knows what will happen but for the contemporaries of Napoleon this was not the case. For the people living in this time it was as much chance that determined the fate of the world. Maybe if Napoleon had been slightly more humble he could've kept his empire (highly unlikely given his zest for power). The Napoleonic wars raged from 1803 to 1815 and shook the foundations of the European order. I was more interested in the general essence of history rather than the details and the author of this book goes to great lengths to provide proof that Metternich was key in defeating Napoleon.

It is from this sense that we arrive at perhaps what Metternich is most famous for: realpolitik. Metternichs diplomacy consisted of long-term strategic planning. In order to defeat Napoleon one needed to have the patience to wait for the exact moment when he was weak enough to attack. This proved difficult as Metternich needed to organize the other powers against its enemy which took much convincing (with repeated failures). After Napoleon was finally defeated at Waterloo Metternich along with the other European powers redrew the map of Europe the stability of which one could say lasted until the outbreak of World War 1.

I found an interesting definition of realpolitik on Wikipedia: Historian John Bew suggests that much of what stands for modern Realpolitik today deviates from the original meaning of the term. Realpolitik emerged in mid-19th century Europe from the collision of the Enlightenment with state formation and power politics. The concept, Bew argues, was an early attempt at answering the conundrum of how to achieve liberal enlightened goals in a world that does not follow liberal enlightened rules.

This view is more closely aligned with the politics pursued by Metternich. He wanted to create an international law in order to hold countries accountable when they threatened the balance of power. A prerequisite of this is however a shared sense of values. This may be easier to do if the lingua franca is french and the political elite of each country has a similar taste in culture. This order tended to be somewhat tenuous and required the finesse of politicians like Metternich and Bismarck in order to work. This order was constantly threatened by nationalism and a certain type of liberalism.

Even though I found the book too long and too much eschewed in Metternichs favor, I was delighted that it provided a history which I had never read before. The Austrian diplomat was not just an arch-conservative but rather a cosmopolitan who put national peace and rationality above national interests of states. The history of the Habsburg is fascinating in itself and something which I regrettably know very little about. I would recommend to anyone interested in the period and who wants to learn more about realpolitik.

[Laetitea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dialog und diplomatie sind die einzige möglichkeit, krieg zu verhindern. Das wusste Bundeskanzler Metternich. Leider ist frieden der arme verwandte der wirtschaft!

[Lauren Albert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is very much a political biography. Siemann hardly discusses Metternich’s parents, children or spouses except discussions of his father from a political point of view.
It is difficult to read a revisionist history/biography when you don’t know what it’s revising. It’s obvious that he is trying to paint a more positive picture of Metternich, but mostly doesn’t address the reasons historians give for the other picture. It does get to the point when I think he “doth protest too much.” He hammers away at his hobby horse, to mix some metaphors.
I will have to read another biography at some point to try to better position Metternich in the scheme of things.

[Jaap Hoogenboezem · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first biography of Metternich that is based on his personal papers and the archive of the Metternich family. It shows: the image of Metternich is completely fresh. Much of the work of earlier biographers is out of date now.

The biography is highly readable and extremely interesting. It provides ample context - so it also serves as a primer of the Napoleonic wars and the period of the restauration and the rise of nationalism. The biography does not spare Metternich, it gives a good portrait of the man an his times.

[David Warner · Rating 2 out of 5]

For those awaiting a proper, full scale biography of Metternich that does justice to both his importance and considerable achievements, this book is a huge disappointment, not because it is yet another attack upon the conservative statesman, but because is a totally partial quasi- hagiography in which the hero cannot err, has incredible foresight, and all mistakes are the product of others who lack his seemingly superhuman skills. By seeking to rescue Metternich from his detractors, and fight tedious battles with previous biographers, Wolfram Siemann, has so over-egged his pudding as to make it partly inedible, and, importantly, has done a grave disservice to Metternich himself, who does not require such partisanship, but, instead, only requires an objective examination of his life and the events of his age for his achievements to be validated, and his mistakes explained.
Metternich is somehow presented as the sole mind who made possible the 1813-14 coalition against Napoleon and the general peace of 1815-48, and who even played a part in the military victories, when he was but one, although an important one, of the statesmen and generals that made these possible, and whose actions were more tactical than strategic. Siemann's view both exaggerates Metternich's influence over politio-military affairs and at the same time undervalues his huge diplomatic success in both protecting the Austrian empire from French dominance and in managing a coalition of disparate states to the advantage of Austria and, in more general terms, Germany and Europe. Siemann constantly attempts to paint Metternich as the strategist and visionary of his subtitle, when actually he was much more of a successful tactician and practical politician who while he maintained a general overview of how Germany should develop, did so so as to further the interests of the Austrian empire. Siemann wants his hero to always appear as a great European confederalist, when in reality his prime motive was always the maintenance of Austrian influence and Habsburg hegemony over its multitude of territories and peoples, and in so doing he ascribes to this most practical and wily of foreign ministers an ideology and purpose unjustified by his actions, preferring instead to take at face value Metternich's own letters and memoirs to find in them a post facto truth not present in the actual decision making of the time.
From the time of his appointment as foreign minister in 1809 to his fall in the March 1848 revolution, Metternich had two main concerns: one, the security of the Austrian empire under Habsburg monarchical rule; and, two, how to maintain this ethnically and linguistically diverse empire within an emerging German national identity, sparked initially by the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and made manifest by the foundation in 1815 of the German Confederation, which Metternich envisioned not as a framework for the development of a German nation, but rather as a means of reconciling disparate German polities under Austrian supremacy. Metternich's problem was that his, Austrian vision increasingly conflicted with the aims not only of nationalists, but of other German states, Prussia predominantly, but also Bavaria and Württemburg, which did not include so many non-Germans within their borders. And so, Metternich was occupied in maintaining a political system against the threats of nationalism, popular sovereignty, and democracy that, while in the shorter term preserved continental peace, was not over the longer term sustainable in light of the political ideas that emerged from the French Revolution, and which was not equipped for the social and economic challenges and developments of the nineteenth century, particularly the industrialisation of Prussia and the concomitant effects that had upon the balance of power in Germany.
Siemann is right to deny that what Metternich sought after 1815 was a restoration of ancien régime Europe - he was a conservative not a reactionary - but the vision he had was still grounded upon the Austrian empire as the heir to the Holy Roman Empire, with Austria as the leading power in both a Germany and a central Europe based upon political structures of confederation and estates, and yet this increasingly became an unsuitable model in an age of liberalism, nationalism, and capitalism. Metternich was incredibly successful in his defensive strategy until 1848, when the revolution he had so long sought to prevent toppled him from power, thereby testifying to the ultimate failure of his policies, and while it is true that there was no 'Metternich system', nonetheless, Metternich maintained a conservative vision of Europe rooted upon a balance of power and aristocratic representation within monarchies that was entirely appropriate for 1813 to 1830, but could no longer be maintained in 1848. Metternich was a man of his time.
Indeed, Metternich was aware of the imitations of his policies, including the 'Congress system' he operated very successfully from 1814 to 1822, but which had to be adapted in the face of events which it could not control, beginning with Greek independence in the 1820s, and moving on to the overthrow of Charles X in 1830 and the foundation of Belgium the following year. But, Metternich was no dogmatist, and he recognised where the settlement of 1814-15 had to be modified in the face of popular demands and when the five continental powers had to recognise and accept such alterations to the political settlement post facto. The 'Congress system' served its immediate purpose, but after 1830 it was increasingly moribund, and was no longer suitable to the situation in which German national identity and demands for popular sovereignty were growing, and in which the foundation of the Zollverein in 1833 provided an alternative economic framework for German development that was predominantly intra-German not European in nature. Metternich may have deplored this de-Europeanisation of the German question and how it unbalanced the continental power system, much to the disadvantage of Austria, and excluded great power congresses from its management, but nonetheless he accepted reality and tried his best to make of the new dispensation what he could until the 1848 Revolution brought down what remained of the political edifice he had constructed with the other powers in 1814-15. If all political careers end in failure, how much is that true of Metternich in March 1848, forced to flee to England and deplored by the monarchy he had so faithfully served? The Metternich dispensation simply could not hold in spite of the skills of its originator, and rather than providing an ultimate solution to German and continental problems, it only deferred their settlement in more aggressive manners, although providing at least a temporary period of peace. If 1815-48 is a transitional period of European history, then Metternich's statesmanship must be seen as equally transitional, while the question remains, which the author in his hurried narrative of 1848 avoids, as to how far Metternich's conservative policies themselves motivated continental wide revolts. What is clear is that however cogent Metternich's vision was of Europe, his practical policies were no longer suitable for the post-1848 age of liberalism and nationalism, and were powerless against the forces of industrial capitalism, self-determination, and democratic sociability which provided the challenges to European stability in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Siemann makes an avid defence of Metternich's reaction to the murder of Kotzebue in 1819 and the resulting 1820 Carlsbad Decrees, but he singularly fails to establish that Metternich's actions were either proportionate to the threat or that there existed revolutionary conspiracies aimed at and with putative capability of overthrowing both monarchical government and the 1815 settlement, and he fails to consider how far the restrictions imposed influenced the 1848 Revolutions by instilling a feeling of political oppression amongst the politically aware, particularly in the cities and amongst students, that could only be alleviated by direct action. There are many parts of Metternich's career that are worthy of praise, but Carlsbad is not one of them, and there is something frankly distasteful in a twenty-first century academic using abstract arguments to justify press censorship, the dismissal of liberal or nationalist professors, and the interception of mail, when these measures are best understood as an overreaction by Metternich and contemporary statesmen to isolated attacks and romantic nostrums based upon their memory of and the fears engendered by French revolutionary violence and war and by Napoleonic conquest.
In the end, Metternich was a practical politician, and it was as this he was most successful, but even so his powers were limited, not only by the realities of continental diplomacy, but also the structures of the Hapsburg monarchy and Austrian empire he served. The most important constraint was that offered by emperor Francis, whose primary instincts were the preservation of the Habsburg dynasty and the protection of his patriarchy, and it was he who both determined and circumscribed how much influence Metternich exerted within the empire, and who, despite their shared political affinities, quashed his attempts at administrative reform. After Francis' death in 1835, the situation changed as a strong willed emperor was succeeded by the infirm and incapable Ferdinand, and power accrued to the archdukes and the council of which Metternich was a member, but which he did not control. It is from this time that Metternich's rivalry with Kolowrat, finance and interior minister since 1826, becomes the dominant factor in internal Imperial disputes. Siemann is ridiculously and relentlessly disobliging towards Kolowrat, the only Habsburg minister to rival his hero, and contradicts himself regarding the political system Metternich favoured. Metternich was opposed to over-centralisation, representative parliaments and democracy, and instead supported monarchy and government of the Habsburg territories by their estates, and yet Siemann criticises Francis for impeding Metternich's proposed reforms and attacks Kolowrat, a Bohemian count whose power lay in his status within the Bohemian estates, for defending the estates and preventing economic reforms that would have lowered tariffs to the detriment of Bohemian landowners. The author cannot have it both ways and cannot criticise the monarchical and estates government for thwarting Metternich, when Metternich himself supported those systems. If the fault was in the monarchy, particularly with Ferdinand from 1835 to 1848, and with the provincial estates, of whom Kolowrat was an outstanding representative, then Metternich who was himself a member of the German and Bohemian estates was equally at fault for operating in and maintaining a system from which he drew his power. If Metternich had not been the son of a count of the Holy Roman Empire, later raised to prince and rewarded with landed estates, as was his son later to be, then he would not have been elevated to the offices of foreign minister and chancellor. He was a part of the very system that Siemann, in order to gratuitously malign Kolowrat, defames.
This book, sadly, is not the biography Metternich deserves. It is too partisan, too polemical, too short-sighted, and too ideological, painting a picture of Metternich as a supreme strategist and visionary, based overwhelmingly upon memoirs, letters, and self-appraisals post facto, that is unjustified by the evidence and which severely underestimates the constraints within which Metternich operated and his own conservative, imperial, monarchical, and aristocratic opinions, which were very much a product of his times, tempered as they were by Revolution and war. Metternich was before all as a minister a servant of the Habsburgs and a representative of the German imperial nobility, and throughout his career he strove to retain as much of that monarchical-aristocratic power structure as he could until finally defeated by a revolution he had sought to prevent but in part had brought about. Metternich was a great statesman and within his time achieved much and contributed to the restoration and maintenance of peace, but this is far from a great biography and it fails to do justice to the real achievements and the limitations of its fascinating subject.

[Ernst · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is great, but not for the reasons you might think. At its core, it is a defense of imperial diplomat and minister against previous interpretions of his role and action in the policy and politics of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations and Austria. It comes from a clearly conservative historian and therefore offers little surprise. What is great about this book is the colourful narrative the author weaves around the person. This widens the focus of this book to offer a rich insight into the Zeitgeist and life in general across the great variety of periods Metternich lived through from the old empire, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars and the Vormaerz and revolutionary period, which eventually led into the German Prussian Empire after his death. And that makes it definitely a worthwhile read.

[Sarthak Bhatt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Metternich the strategist
Metternich the diplomat
Metternich the economist and
Metternich the doctor. I feel so sad Metternich was not born in the 21st century he could have solved np complete problems and cured cancer. And would have taken down china easily. A pathetic hagiography that's what this book is no wrong was ever done by Metternich and Napoleon was an evil maniac and all were inept except the womanising prince. I'll admit I didn't get to the end I left it on page 600 I gave up because the writing style is so boring that it took me 2 months to get there. It seems that the author of this book has some beef with previous Metternich biographers as he spends 40% of the text shitting on them. I can think of no guy who could make such an interesting period in human history so tediously boring.

[Ginger Griffin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The last gasp of Europe's old feudal order. When Metternich was born, the Holy Roman Empire was still creaking along (and his family owed their position to serving it).

The French Revolution changed all that. Austria bumbled into war with revolutionary France, setting off a series of wars that lasted over 20 years and drew in most of Europe. When Napoleon came to power, he found a continent ripe for the picking. His major continental opponents (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) squabbled among themselves and failed to coordinate their actions, so Napoleon was able to defeat them one by one. By the time the dust settled after the Battle of Waterloo, millions were dead and entire societies disrupted. (The coalition that finally defeated Napoleon probably wouldn't have succeeded had Napoleon's invasion of Russia not devastated French forces).

Metternich was near the center of the action throughout all of this, rising to become Austria's foreign minister and eventually its chancellor. After 1815, he played a leading role in restoring the pre-revolutionary status quo and dedicated much of his career to suppressing any nascent movement that might signal a return to social revolution.

The author tries to soften Metternich's image as an arch-conservative, but fails to convince. Admittedly, Metternich was dealing with the hide-bound and (literally) inbred Habsburg monarchy, which might have defeated even the most strenuous reformer. And Metternich clearly was intelligent and discerning. He ably defended Austria, because Austria's interests were his own (his wealth mostly derived from land ownership). But there's no denying the harsh censorship and repression that Metternich imposed -- which probably helped bring on, in 1848, the very revolution he was dreading. (Though it's pointless to read 21st century ideas about politics into Metternich's era. The agitators he was suppressing were no cherubs themselves. Their nationalist movements were violent and anti-Semitic.)

Metternich is often credited with creating a balance of power in Europe that produced (relative) peace for several decades. But even that seems questionable. In the decades after 1815, the continental European powers were exhausted by years of major warfare and were busy putting down internal rebellions; they mostly directed their military efforts at peripheral areas. Once they had time to rest up, they were back at it. The Crimean War erupted in 1853, roughly on schedule considering the circumstances.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was hard going, to be honest. It didn't help that the translation into English from the original German was not always the best. There were times I could quite see the underlying German so it had been translated more or less word for word, but this could give it a distinctly clunky feel to a native English speaker. With regard to the content, again it could be a slog. The author was at desperate pains at times to distance himself from previous biographers, and made it absolutely explicit time and again that he though his predecessor biographers had got things wrong. Fair enough, but at times it read like a polemic! I was at times surprised that the large events in Metternich's long life were sometimes given very brisk treatment, as if the author was saying: I know you know everything about this war/battle/revolution, so I won't bore you by going over it again in detail. But there were valuable insights into aspects of Metternich's life and thinking that were very new to me and the overall picture did make logical sense. Metternich was not necessarily the curmudgeonly reactionary he is often painted as. I suppose I would have preferred a more conventional narrative-history-type of biography. Maybe that isn't the way of writing them in Germany.

[Matthías Ólafsson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tímamótaverk en það þjáist af framsetningunni sem er aðeins of metnaðargjörn í blaðsíðutali en líka bara oft á tíðum frekar flöt og bitlaus. Ég skimaði yfir suma kafla og reyndi að einblína á það sem mér sjálfum fannst áhugaverðast. Kaflarnir um samtöl og samband hans við Napoleon voru mjög áhugaverðir t.d. en á sama tíma fannst mér of mörgum blaðsíðum eytt í svolítið tæknilega hluti. Sömuleiðis er söguskoðunin hér líka mjög fersk og vel rökstudd varðandi samtíma Metternich en fer kannski aðeins of langt í að fegra ímynd hans á tíðum. Ef framsetningin hefði verið betri og meira samanþjappaðri væri þetta solid fjarki en ég get því miður ekki gefið meira en þrjár hér.

[P J M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just reeks of the Germanic. Four stars.

[Jan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A herculean effort by the author. Thorough, concise and persuasive in its challenge to traditional (negative) narratives related to Metternich.

[Alex Helling · Rating 3 out of 5]

Prince Clemens von Metternich is one of the best known statesmen of the 19th century. He was instrumental diplomatically in the final coalitions to defeat Napoleon and in the Congress of Vienna that built the peace after the wars. Long known for being an advocate of the ‘balance of power’ abroad and conservatism at home Wolfram Siemann shows in his book Metternich Strategist and Visionary that both views are not entirely accurate. That Metternich helped build a peaceful thirty years in the ‘congress system’ has long been recognised but Siemann argues this was more his achievement than anyone else' s and at home Siemann aims to show Metternich’s unrecognised more modern side. This is a monumental biography charting a long and very full life where Metternich was at the centre of world events for the whole of the first half of the nineteenth century.

Pros
A detailed look at the man who reconfigured Europe
Diplomatic history rather than biography

Cons
Not much on the personal side
Patchy argumentation
Catty

I imagine Siemann going to his publisher and pleading to let him write a book on Austria’s central role diplomatically in the Napoleonic wars and the subsequent European concert. To which the publisher says ‘No - that won't sell. You will do a biography.’ Siemann relents, and then writes his Austria centric diplomatic history anyway. This may be a biography in name, but the author is much more interested in Metternich's intellectual political ideas and diplomacy than inconvenient things like a personal life. Indeed he comes close to saying so himself “In the context of a biography, our view must also descend from the large scale issues decided at the Congress of Vienna to the smaller-scale issues that immediately affected the House of Metternich.”(p443) sounds decidedly reluctant, doesn't he? A boon if you like the diplomatic side. Less so if you want a steamy tale of affairs and sexual encounters. Three wives and half a dozen affairs of various levels of seriousness could have brought some serious sexual frisson to the book. Alas if that is your desire you won't find it here. The women are essentially relegated to one chapter, each liaison getting a couple of pages - ‘I’ll put it in if I must!’ To be fair, Siemann’s aim is to counter biographies that are in his view so focused on Metternich’s personal life that they portray him as lightweight intellectually. Sticking to diplomacy, governance, and ideas is the repost. That said the women in Metternich’s life are not the only area neglected; court politics is too. Usually much of a politician’s time is spent shoring up their own position internally but I had begun to wonder if Metternich had complete dominance until we are told on p627 when appointed state chancellor “the emperor… still reserved the right to play off his ministers and heads of court offices against each other as he wished.” So clearly such factionalism was rife and we simply don't hear about it.

It may not be steamy but the writing is decent, I have sometimes been surprised by how quickly I have got through the book. But it is quite academic; opportunities to give forward momentum and anticipation are ignored. For example the negotiations for Metternich’s marriage are long, convoluted, and clearly on the point of failure at times. Siemann right at the start tells us the marriage succeeds and was happy so removing any potential tension the fraught situation could create but that is not a big issue when it is not really the kind of book you expect to drag you forwards through writing style. And if the style could perhaps be more engaging there is no denying Metternich’s life adds plenty of drama without needing the extra help.

Perhaps there is just too much zeal to be revisionist with Siemann arguing against “historians” both on lots of individual events and about Metternich’s vision as a whole. He makes the case that Metternich was a long term visionary working towards the restoration of peace and not a machiavellian using short term moves to his own, or even just Austria’s ends. Unfortunately, I constantly found that case undermined by what we are told elsewhere in the book. For example there is a lovely quote from a paper by Metternich that partitioning Poland would be “contrary to all principles of sound policy” a violation of law and “Poland prevented the frequent collisions that always occur when there is immediate contact”(p.177) but a few years later carving up the renewed Poland (Duchy of Warsaw) is part of the grand design for peace at Teplitz (p.363). We then swing back to briefly supporting independence before it is finally and enduringly carved up. Of course Metternich is allowed to change his mind as circumstances change, but it also shows a willingness to put the short term before the long which doesn’t fit with the vision thing.

It does not help that the argumentation is patchy. Sometimes it is very good with lots of detail to back it up. However Siemann is also prone to making assertions without supporting argumentation. E.g. It is argued the 1813 protocols of Teplitz’s preamble was inspired by Metternich’s vision for peace: “the intention, it said, was to end Europe’s misery and to restore its peace by creating the right balance of power.”(p.362) There is no further justification for this being a peculiarly Metternichian idea. After 20 years of almost continual war surely everyone wanted peace? And all the powers wanted “the right balance of power”, something that had been a cornerstone of British policy for well over a century by this point, and was bought into by all the powers in the 18th century. Or he fails to make the connection between the arguments and the assertion such as Siemann arguing til he is blue in the face that Metternich’s knew his peace initiatives would be rejected (but what if they hadn’t been?) so we should not see him as being slippery when going behind the back of his allies or wanting to keep Napoleon on as a ruler. After lots of interesting but irrelevant arguing about borders and vassal states we end up with a direct quote “if Napoleon lives, if he rules - he will be smaller, as if he had never ruled!” (p385) err… so he was indeed giving Napoleon the option! As a result, while I see the value in making the case I was often unconvinced.

There were quite a few things that I disliked that were distinctly personal, I just oddly disliked the tone which was oddly condescending towards most people Metternich interacted with. Of Metternich’s fellow statesmen: “few people had both the sangfroid and the intellectual acuity to master this situation. The tsar, Gneisenau, Blücher, and Stein were certainly not among them” (p.380-1); “Metternich’s political understanding far outstripped that of Castlereagh”(p.388). But getting beyond that though there is objectively a lot to like about the book. It is immensely detailed about Metternich’s life, his diplomacy, his work, and something often neglected his ideas and influences for example, diving into how Metternich encountered Edmund Burke’s ideas when in London as a 21 year old (p.116) and there is the space for Siemann to provide excellent descriptions of the places Metternich visits.

So a book of ups and downs. One to recommend to anyone interested in the Napoleonic wars or diplomatic history.

[Dylan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a remarkable biography for a number of reasons. It’s very dense with description, analysis, and narrative but does not read as a “heavy” or “academic” book. The text is very accessible and the author write so clearly that complicated issues spread out over many pages are not lost. On the subject of Metternich its striking how modern his visions of war, peace, social, and economic issues were. His global outlook on how to preserve peace can be seen in many institutions today. This is also the first perspective I’ve read on what a menace Napoleon was to Metternich’s concept of peace. Most accounts of Napoleon speak to his strengths and this is an interesting account of being on the business-end of Napoleon’s empire. I can’t recommend this book enough.

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Metternich: Strategist and Visionary is an outstanding biography of an important figure in nineteenth century European foreign policy. From the revolution in France to the Napoleonic Wars to the embryonic stages of German nation-state development during the Holy Roman Empire’s waning days, this book captures the crucial developments of the age through the lens of a deeply respected Austrian diplomat.

Klemens von Metternich was the Koblenz-born son of Count Franz George Karl, and author Wolfram Siemann takes the time to trace how the family’s semi-aristocratic lineage likely impacted the way they viewed democratic reforms such as the French Revolution. Lands on the Rhine River which had been taken from the family did not foster love for the whims of pure democracy or those of unstable authoritarians.

Franz George was deeply involved in the implementation of the Holy Roman Empire’s foreign policy in the second half of the eighteenth century, and experience gained at the foot of his father would help Klemens gain the wealth of knowledge that would aid him once he became Austria’s foreign minister.

Metternich: Strategist and Visionary is top notch historical writing. It presents a complex portrait of Klemens that is, as the author points out, sometimes at odds with the conventional wisdom of Metternich as a deeply reactionary foe of progress. While he shared the coolness toward democracy common among his class at the time, the book holds Metternich up to be an advocate of realpolitik who seemed to lean toward monarchical republicanism as the most stable form of government.

He frequently worked with Robert Stewart (Lord Castlereagh), his British diplomatic counterpart. Metternich comes across as an Anglophile, at least when it comes to Britain's form of monarchical government.

Metternich had traveled to capitals such as Paris and London from the time his dad served the Habsburg foreign ministry, and his preference for the latter capital was not in doubt. His policies leaned toward a moderate mix of supporting constitutions (written or otherwise) if they had grown organically while looking askance at constitutions or changes forced by violent revolutionary upheaval.

Czar Alexander I makes frequent appearances in the book, particularly within the context of how to get a handle on Napoleon’s plans for conquest. He seemed to play both sides at one point or the other (especially around the time of the Treaty of Tilsit), and Karl Vasilyevich, Count Nesselrode, also played a big role when it comes to Metternich’s diplomacy toward Russia. Dealings with eastern European lands like Poland presented a dilemma for diplomats like Metternich who were anxious to not alienate Alexander’s Russia as a potential ally against France.

Prussia’s Frederick William III also had a huge impact on how effectively Metternich was able to harness the power of the anti-Napoleonic nations. As the northern counterpart to the southern Germanic lands of the Habsburgs represented by Metternich, Prussia was surprisingly slippery when it came to their foreign policy during the Napoleonic Wars. The self-interest guiding so much of the day’s foreign policies was present in spades during William III’s appearances.

Readers who are looking to read a Frederick Kagan-style analysis of the various coalitions and alliances during the Napoleonic War years will not be disappointed. Metternich comes across as believer in the balance of power, establishing this as a precursor of western European foreign policy in the century before World War One.

Metternich was married three times. Eleanore, Melanie, and Antoinette are given some attention in the book, although Siemann zeroes in on the diplomatic sphere to such an extent that there is not much left of for detailed examinations of his family life.

The section Metternich played in hooking Napoleon up with this second wife, Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma-who was the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Francis II-makes for compelling reading and shows the extent to which marriage was still a sterile tool for linking empires.

The revolutionary fervor which started to rear its head in Germany in the 1820s (and would explode with the 1848 revolutions) was not something Metternich looked kindly upon. The repressive police state which Austria would later come to be associated with was in its early stages during Metternich’s last years on the scene; he is not exactly shown to have been an opponent of these measures being implemented to tamp down on excessive anti-government agitation.

Metternich: Strategist and Visionary does not leave much to be desired. Siemann, whose book was translated from German, has a depth of knowledge of the man and his era that is truly admirable.

The balancing of interests within and between nation-states is a key component of the book. It has chapters chock full of balancing acts carried out between diplomats, and the shape Europe took from the early 1800s into the century's latter half will be better understood after having read this book.

There is not a two-dimensional presentation of Metternich; he is instead put forward, warts and all, for examination by curious readers. The book respects its topic and audience enough to explain and lay out events and decisions within the layered contexts of their time and place, and for this reason it a must-read for all those seeking a better understanding of how Europe's diplomacy evolved from the time of revolutionary France through the years leading up to the Crimean War.

Five stars are earned by this excellent work of nonfiction, and it belongs on the bookshelf of all of those interested in European and Habsburg history.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Gareth Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A magisterial, epic, meticulous biography which is a towering testament to scholarly industry. "Metternich" depicts the "founding father" of western conservatism in the context of a civilisation buckling under the chaotic pressure unleashed by the French Revolution, as well as offering a richly nuanced portrait of von Metternich's intellectual life and the twilight of the Holy Roman Empire. I savoured this book, as much as for its dense flavour of the era and rigorous analysis of history as I did for its shrewd assessment of philosophy, law, federalism, anti-nationalism, and European conservatism.

[Klaus Metzger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eine hochwertige und sehr detaillierte Biographie über den Staatskanzler Metternich, der mit entscheidend die Zeit unter Napoleon und nach dessen Scheitern geprägt hat. Bekannt ist der Wiener Kongress (1814 bis 1815), der von Metternich sehr stark beinflusst wurde. Bei einem kürzlichen Wochenendausflug nach Wien konnten die Orte seines Wirkens und die Sitze der österreichischen Kaiser Franz I und Franz Josef nacherleben. Der emotionale Abschluss war die Kaiserkruft in der Kapuzinerkirche.

[Diego · Rating 5 out of 5]

La extensa biografía de Metternich que produjo Wolfram Siemann merece toda la buena prensa que tiene en círculos académicos. Es una lectura que además de adentrarse en la mente de Metternich y su visión de “fortaleza en la ley” en los distintos terrenos de su vida, nos permite conocer mucho de la vida política y cultural en los tiempos finales del Sacro Imperio Romano y posteriormente imperio Austriaco.

Es una ventana para conocer al viejo regimen europeo en la era de las revoluciones. El periodo de las guerras Napoleónicas usualmente se le trata mucho más desde el punto de vista Frances e Inglés, los recuentos desde Rusia y Austria son más escasos pero son igual de importantes para entender las causas políticas y razonamiento detrás de la formación de las seis coaliciones que estarían en guerra contra Francia entre 1792 y 1815. Esta biografía, desde los ojos de Metternich y el rol central que jugo en la diplomacia de la época y el armado de la coalición que finalmente derrotaría a Napoleón ayuda mucho a cubrir esta laguna en la literatura.

Al mismo tiempo es una gran lectura sobre el entendimiento del balance de poder en Europa y el sistema que surgiría después de la conferencia de Viena de 1815 y que salvo algunos episodios serviría para mantener la paz en Europa durante la mayor parte del siglo XIX.

Además de la ventana a la política y a la economía del periodo y del mundo Austriaco y de la confederación alemana, nos de los detalles sobre los intercambios entre las cortes de los principales potencias, las conversaciones entre Napoleón y Metternich y entre Talleyrand y Metternich y otros diplomáticos importantes del periodo como Castlereagh, Hardenberg, Nesselrode y el Zar Alexandro I.

Dado que Metternich tuvo una larga vida (más de 8 décadas) la biografía justo nos lleva a un periodo de transición entre el viejo mundo del Sacro Imperio Romano al mundo moderno de la Revolución Industrial y de la gran política Europea. Una de las partes más interesantes es como Metternich famoso como símbolo de conservadurismo y del antiguo regimen era mucho menos conservador de lo que pensamos, sus ideas económicas eran más parecidas a las de List o Hamilton, sus ideas políticas si bien conservadoras al estilo de Burke no era radicalmente monárquico, al contrario encontraba en el feudalismo Europeo un problema serio y una fuente de inestabilidad política.

Su desprecio por la Revolución Francesa no partía de un rechazo a sus ideas, el encontraba la revolución justificada en sus causas, la brutal explotación de las clases bajas, los abusos de poder de las élites. Su rechazo venia de la guerra total que desato en Europa por veinte años y la imposibilidad de reconciliar un estado de e revolución permanente con un balance de poder entre los estados Europeos. Para el el problema era como se lo dice a Napoleón en una de sus largas discusiones era: “que su paz solo era una tregua, siempre preparando el terreno para la próxima guerra.”

Otra parte interesante es ver como en el funcionamiento interno del Imperio austriaco, un Estado plurinacional, con nacionalidades diferentes sin que ninguna sea un Estado pero donde cada una tenia cierta autonomía se encuentra un antecesor directo de la Unión Europea de nuestras días.

Es un gran libro, que vale mucho la pena leer con calma, para los que disfrutan de leer sobre relaciones internacionales, guerras, gran estrategia y la transformación social del largo siglo XIX, es una lectura imperdible.

[Claire Binkley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why did I open this gargantuan book?
Well, why do I read?
To see what it has to say.

My first inclination was to look into all the little minutiae of Clemens von Metternich's life, since firstly I have diplomatic yearnings and then secondly it seems like this figure has done much more than I can possibly ever understand in the brief snippet of time that the library affords me to promote cooperation between people, but then after the gargantuan workload of National Novel Writing Nonth passed, my urge to read into him has mostly passed, as well.
However, I still think extremely highly of this man from the earlier half of the 1800's, and also the translation of this biography, and I think you will too, for more than one reason.

I have never been to Vienna before. (Mozart.)
Among the things I found of interest in this book, it is interesting to see the image of the first page from Emperor Ferdinand I's diary and on the reverse page some notes from a lecture by Metternich taken by this famous person. I remember my mother had told me who Ferdinand I was when I was eight years old!
Like riding a bike, these kinds of memories don't fade. I remember riding down the long private driveway on a bicycle with my sister at that age until I fell off and made a bloody mess of my knee, so then I mostly stopped.
The image in this book was translated to something regarding Diplomacy, even though I can't discern what it says very well, having studied only a snapshot of German in the past, when I was a teen... It's okay, the translator translates it, so you don't have to go through the bloodshed of learning enough German to understand.

I will highly likely return to contemplation of what Metternich did when I fly over and load myself up with the vast unknown bounties of knowledge I have glimpsed may come ahead in my future, about Metternich, as well as others like him.
Perhaps when I get a chance to read about more people as this man, my own path in negotiation shall become clearer.

[Andrew Leuciuc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Many of the reviews written on this book perfectly describe the problems with it. While it was nice to get a new perspective on Metternich, it’s very clear that the author goes out of his way to paint all of his ideas, decisions, etc in a positive light. An example of this is the chapter on women - Metternich cheats on his wife and has relationships with other women and even this is kind of passed over / pushed in a positive light as the author basically says “yeah he cheated and held relations with other women but only one woman at a time.” Although this was likely the norm for aristocrats at the time the way the author talks about this and presents it is emblematic of how he describes almost everything. Even when something fails, it is seen as a fault in others with Metternich having 0 blame.

I like that the author points out what he thinks are commonly held misconceptions about Metternich by other historians / the general public but honestly it gets to a point where it’s kind of ridiculous, especially the language he employs while doing so. Felt like every chapter had 5 shots at Srbik. Another big problem was the clunkiness. The book was translated from German to English and there are many parts where that’s glaringly obvious.

A few positives include the description of the situation with Napoleon - most history focuses on Napoleons perspective and it was nice to get an opposing side as well. While some of Metternich’s ideas weren’t close to perfect it is really nice to have insight into why he took the positions he did and why he believed in a general peace through balance. Additionally, reading about his relations with Tsar Alexander and the Prussian heads was fascinating, but seeing the glaring bias makes you wonder how much is exaggerated and how much is not.

[Rosa Angelone · Rating 5 out of 5]

Look. This is a long-un. If you want a bio that sticks strictly to what happened when to whom..perhaps go somewhere else (although plenty of that is in there). Turns out I was in exactly the right mood for this type of book.

The first few chapters spend time going over how Metternich was viewed over the years, who the different big names in scholarship are and how the book follows that pattern and where it differs. I promise you it is worth going through and it is a great example of how the author always places Metternich in his time (what he did and how he and others thought about it) as well as treats him as someone the public has been discussing almost since he came on the scene.

I picked this up because it was available and I happen to be on a French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars kick. Besides it being useful to learn more about one of the major players in that era, the book focuses on what is happening in Austria and the rest of the German speaking areas. It is incredibly helpful to step away from the center of France and come at the story from the other direction (even when they were on the same side)

I never felt lost as the author took us through the twists and turns of Metternich's life and era. His family background was fascinating. It serves as an excellent primer on how the Austrian Empire ran. I especially liked how the author showed how historians have viewed the difference in style and tone between Metternich's letters to the (many) women he loved and his public opinions.

This is an excellent book well worth it if you have the time.

[Michael Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Through many podcasts series and other books, Metternich has played a large role in the stories, especially for the period of Napoleon. I wanted to read a biography and this seemed the most comprehensive modern on there is.

While the author takes every opportunity to dismiss Srbik's interpretation of Metternich's life, it honestly comes across as trying too hard. While many good points are made to dissuade the notion of a "Metternich Era" and the association he had with a repressive authoritarian regime, ultimately the failure to engage with the main arguments blunts the point somewhat.

The book itself is well written and flows nicely, if a bit lengthy. There were very few 'dry spells' where you want to skim (unlike the Iron Kingdom recently reviewed) and the first half dealing with the Napoleonic Wars up to the Congress of Vienna is the strongest part.

The section on his private life, the many deaths in his family and the numerous affairs - was told very well and was extremely interesting. His later ostracization within the Austrian political sphere as he pushed for reforms and the manor in which the Hapsburg empire slowly crumbled due to a lack of reorganization was well told.

All in all, you have to have an interest in European politics from 1792-1848 to enjoy this book. But if you are a history fan, its one of the best periods to dive deeper into.

[Ernst · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author has a compelling subject. Author is solidly on Metternich's side -- his problematic relations with women are thrown together into one short chapter, much of which is dedicated to Metternich's ahead of his time views on women's ability to do jobs well which in his own time were reserved only to men. Author's extensive archival research allows him to present new views on Metternich -- his military organizing, successfully restraining a Russian czar who was a terrible military leader, and his work leading up to 1848 which, in this book, ends with him being made to take the fall for the failure to enact needed policies which he had supported while the real culprits went unscathed. The importance of Metternich's life to thinkers of the last 170 years is mentioned, but this could have been more detailed, and more speculation as to how the author's new interpretations of his subject might have changed the interpretations, or might change future interpretations would have been welcome.

[Ian Prince · Rating 5 out of 5]

Metternich is often portrayed as the staunch defender of the old order, of monarchism and conservatism. His tenure as chief foreign minister of the Austrian Empire from 1812-1848 is often referred to as the age of Metternich. However this has recently and in great part due to this book, been challenged. Such an assessment of Metternich’s life and career cannot be summed up so succinctly. Metternich is also often portrayed as the great enemy of revolution. While he was opposed to dramatic social change, he was not, as this book properly illustrates, some kind of old stick in the mud. Metternich knew he lived in a changing world. His great concern was that this rapidly changing world would lead to the overthrowing of the great European powers. Metternich was a savvy politician, hard to pin down, strong willed in his convictions, and a man who stands out in his time.

“When France has a cold, the rest of Europe sneezes.”

“It is useless to close the gate against ideas, the simply overleap them.”

[Chris Nolan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This might be an amazing book for someone that is already very knowledgeable about this period of time and with Metternich already. The author seems to do a great job of countering previous biographies and takes on Metternich's life and political philosophy with a lot of new information. But if you are new to learning about this time period, as I am, there's just not enough there to really understand his life and everything that he did and accomplished. I came away from the book not knowing much more of him than I did before I started reading. Mostly, I just know what he wasn't from the author's countering of previous biographies of Metternich. I still want to know more about the man, but I feel that I can't read older biographies if they were so wrong about the man, but this one wasn't enough. I hope there is a future biography that takes this book into account, but presents the information as a more traditional telling of the man's life.

[Matteo Cordero · Rating 4 out of 5]

Metternich: Strategist and Visionary is probably one the most complete and accessible biography ever written. The author is Wolfrad Sieman eminent historian of the nineteenth century. This work is a biography of Count Klemens Von Metternich, one the most influential statesman of his time and probably in history. Historians have always depicted Metternich as a powerful aristocrat who suppressed any form of liberalism and national independence. However, Siemann depicts a new version of his character: he was a modern statesman who helped modernise Europe as a thoughtful strategist and visionary. Metternich was grown during the dramatic events of the French Revolution and the rise to power of the emperor Napoleon. The Metternich's main goal as a diplomat - mainly as an ambassador, foreign ministry, chancellor and close collaborator with the Austrian emperor - was to preserve peace throughout Europe in contrast to the overbearing persona of Napoleon. An essential part of Metternich's life comprehends the turbulent revolution with Napoleon. At the time, the Austrian Count was the French ambassador and he had close relationships with the emperor Himself. Metternich's smart and Machiavellian mind had always deceived the emotional Napoleon. Eventually, He was able to elude Napoleon and take time to build an intercontinental alliance with the major nations in Europe that would eventually defeat Napoleon.

I've been always fascinated by the powerful figure of Metternich and this biography helped me better understand his life. I like this book: it is complete and relatively not too long and complete with the crucial events of the Austrian Count's life. However, some passages in the book tend to slow down the flow of the book and so it makes it less interesting from my point of view. Different anecdotes talk about constitutional laws and the development of technical internal policies that are strictly specific which I did not find interesting as I am more interested in the story of the life of Metternich.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very strong biography of one of the most pivotal figures of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The author paints a compelling portrait of Metternich the man as well as the diplomat/politician. Sections on his relationships with women, on the loss of his children and the management of his estates and investments in his properties are all very well done and almost unexpected in this sweeping biography.

The core thesis, if there is one, is that Metternich was actually quite a livers in many senses of the word and was also extremely consistent in his belief in Freedom and Order. His core orientation was towards balancing factions and peoples and powers.

I’m sure lots of stuff I missed nuances of.

My only gripe is that he doesn’t provide enough historical contextual information. A paragraph here or there about the coalitions or napoleon or 1848 etc would all have been very welcome. Without the Revolutions podcast I’d have been totally lost.

Side note in the intro: Interesting reference: Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger The Emperor's Old Clothes: Constitutional History and the Symbolic Language of the Holy Roman Empire - "The spell of the collective fiction"

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Convincing revisionist account-makes me want to read Srbik to compare. Might seem to lean too heavily into the laudatory tendency? Metternich is presented as a conservative reformer who opposed both the radical jacobins or ultra royalist. The censorship issue in Carlsbad degrees was presented as reasonable anti-terrorist laws likened to those our states use today.

Interesting view into the partially modern world of 19th century Europe. I might read a book specific to the congress because I expected more about the congress than I received.

I felt like I was missing more info during Metternich final days in office–was he so hated because of the agricultural/financial issues of the day? This is what I thought but felt like author could’ve said more.